Nikolin, B., Herrera, J., McCready, T., Grau, D., and Parrish, K. 2015. “A Call for New Research in

the Lean Construction Community: Alternative Work Schedules.” In: Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. of the

Int’l. Group for Lean Construction. Perth, Australia, July 29-31, pp. 435-443, available at

www.iglc.net

435 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia

A CALL FOR NEW RESEARCH IN THE

LEAN CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY:

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES

Brent Nikolin1, Jason Herrera2, Tom McCready3, David Grau4, and Kristen

Parrish5

ABSTRACT

While there is considerable research performed in the construction industry on the

loss of productivity after a 5 day / 8 hour a day work week there is very little research

exploring productivity with fewer work hours. Other industries have shown that they

are more productive working shorter weekly schedules. Indeed, if we can produce a

quality product with fewer resources, value stream is improved and a leaner process

executed. More importantly, if we can be safer and improve quality of life we are

achieving the most important tenant of lean, respect for people. To reinforce such

notion, data shows that the US is 3% less productive than the other top 10 most

productive countries in the world even though the US workforce works 21% more

hours. Several countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, who work 29 and 33

hours per week, respectively, have a higher quality of life and have similar or higher

productivity. This paper presents both a theoretical basis for alternative work

schedules in construction as well as the results of a survey administered to trade

contractor personnel, illustrating the potential safety benefits of a schedule change.

KEYWORDS

Productivity, quality of life, safety, alternative work schedules (AWS), waste.

INTRODUCTION

Field workers currently work 40 hours each week, spanning 5 days with 8-hour shifts

per day. This study aims at challenging this practice and presents alternative work

schedules that may improve safety, quality, productivity, and quality of life while

reducing the carbon footprint. We borrow ideas from other industries, including

healthcare, law enforcement, and others that have shorter workweeks (Geiger-Brown,

Trinkoff and Rogers, 2011; Kelly, Moen and Tranby, 2011; Griffin and Moorhead

2012). These industries have shown that they are more productive and that their staffs

1 Brent Nikolin, Director, Turner Construction, 213.216.7869, bnikolin@tcco.com 2 Jason Herrera, Self-Perform Work Manager, DPR Construction, 949.230.6083, jasonh@dpr.com 3 Tom McCready, DPR Construction, 949.933.0386, tomm@dpr.com 4 Assistant Professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State

University, 660 S. College Ave, Tempe, AZ, USA, 85287-3005, David.Grau@asu.edu 5 Assistant Professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State

University, 660 S. College Ave, Tempe, AZ, USA, 85287-3005, Kristen.Parrish@asu.edu

Brent Nikolin, Jason Herrera, Tom McCready, David Grau, and Kristen Parrish

436 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia

prefer shorter schedules (Tippins and Stroh, 1993; Kim and Wiggins, 2011; Anthony

2012; Morrison and Thurnell, 2012; He, 2013). Moreover, data shows that the US is

not one of the most productive countries in the world even though the US workforce

works 21% more hours (Hall and Jones, 1998). This paper is a call for more research

in the area of alternative work schedules in construction, as the authors believe that

research in this area may compel owners to accept an alternative work schedule.

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES

Combs (2010) implicitly defines alternative work schedules as any work schedule

that is not 5-day, 9am–5pm (8 hour/day), 40-hour work weeks. Specifically, she

defines flextime, where employees vary their start and end times while maintaining a

required core hours. This schedule allows employees to select their own start and end

times, but generally involves a 5-day workweek. A compressed workweek allows an

employee to work 40 hours but in less than five eight-hour days within a week.

Finally, telecommuting allows employees to work from home or another alternate

location.

Alternative work schedules seem particularly popular in the public sector as well

as in the healthcare industries (Tippins and Stroh, 1993; Combs, 2010; Geiger-Brown,

Trinkoff and Rogers, 2011; Kelly, Moen and Tranby, 2011; Anthony, 2012; Griffin

and Moorhead, 2012; Morrison and Thurnell, 2012; He, 2013). Most of these

industries implement compressed workweeks that allow employees to work 40 hours

each week in fewer than five days.

In 2002, 100 school districts in 6 states experimented with knocking off Friday.

The school days were extended an hour or more to make up for the lost time. Schools

found they could save money on transportation, heating and substitute teachers.

Advantages were decreased absence by teachers and students, and the 5th day was

used for teacher training or personal appointments. There were also reports of

improved student morale and behaviour (Donis‐Keller and Silvernail, 2009).

Within the construction industry, in Netherlands and Denmark respectively, where

standard workweeks are 29 hours and 33 hours, trade contractors work fewer hours

and have a higher quality of life and are more productive, according to conversations

we held with subject matter experts from those countries. Moreover, Morrison and

Thurnell (2012) report that construction companies in New Zealand allow employees

to use alternative work schedules to promote retention. While this study provides

value, it focused on managers as opposed to field workers, who are the scope of this

study.

CURRENT CONDITION IN THE USA: 40-HOUR

WORKWEEK

Most industries in the USA work a 40 hour work week combined of (5) 8 hour work

days (Combs, 2010). This has roots in the late 18th century, when companies started

to focus on maximizing factory output. To do so, many companies sought 24/7

operation. At that time, the notion of increased efficiency was actually to make

people work longer. In fact, 10-16 hour days were the norm (Combs, 2010). These

incredibly long workdays were not sustainable and soon Robert Owen started a

A CALL FOR NEW RESEARCH IN THE LEAN CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY:

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES

WASTE IN CONSTRUCTION 437

campaign to have people work no more than 8 hours per day. His slogan was "Eight

hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest" (Widrich, 2014). Widrich

(2014) further reports that Henry Ford was an early adopter of the 8-hour workday

because it offered employees leisure time, which contributed to the market for the

automobiles his factories were producing.

As in most US industries, construction companies typically employ a 5-day, 40-

hour workweek. According to the authors’ conversations with owners, they generally

feel the 5-day, 40-hour workweek is the fastest and most cost effective way to build.

Construction unions have also adopted the 5-day 40-hour workweek to be the

standard for regular time wages.

SAFETY IMPACTS

The authors postulate the current workload has safety impacts on construction sites.

Based on the 2014 Southern California (USA) safety logs from Turner Construction,

the authors tracked the day and time incidents were reported. Fig. 1 illustrates the day

of the week and the time of the day associated with incidents. Note that the average

and median injury time for everyday of the week occurred between 9:50 am and

12:39 pm. This time corresponds to the timeframes of the morning and lunch breaks

(Figure 1). These breaks in work pose the highest risk for safety incidents. By

eliminating a day of work and more importantly breaks in work, there is a potential to

drastically reduce the number of safety incidents that occur. This further compels the

notion of implementing an alternative work schedule.

Figure 1: Box Chart of Injuries by Time and Day of Week.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS

The 5-day, 40-hour workweek requires traveling to and from work 5 days each week,

and this travel creates carbon emissions. According to the US Census Bureau, the

average travel time to and from work is 50 minutes, totalling 250 minutes of driving

Brent Nikolin, Jason Herrera, Tom McCready, David Grau, and Kristen Parrish

438 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia

per week, which translates to 15,600 minutes a year (McKenzie and Rapino, 2011).

The average commute is 30 miles round trip, totalling 150 miles per week and 7,800

miles per year. According to American Forests (2015), each gallon of gas emits 17.68

pounds of CO2. In 2011, the weighted average fuel economy of cars and light trucks

combined was 21.4 miles per gallon (FHWA 2013). Thus, each person emits 6,453

lbs of CO2 annually driving to and from work.

7,800 miles/year = 365 gal/year

365 gal/year x 17.68 lbs/gal = 6453 lbs/year CO2

21.4 miles/gal

NON-VALUE ADDED WORK IMPACTS

Each day a worker must get to his/her work area and prepare the day’s task. This on

average can be 20-30 minutes depending on how far and how much prep is required

for the task. Additionally, there is a similar timeframe for cleaning up and vacating

the work area. Finally, there is a morning and lunch break per day. Similar to the

commencement and completion of the work day there is time associated with these

breaks where workers must prep/close work area. This can be a combined 20-30

minutes of additional work.

When looking at the effect of a 4 day/9 hour a day work week vs. a standard work

week we can quickly quantify the effect. There can possibly be a 100 minute

reduction in set-up time (Non-Value Added Work) just by downsizing to a 4 day

work week. This means that a craftsmen needs to be about 7% more productive

working a 4 day/9 hour a day work week to achieve the current state of productivity.

If a plumber is currently installing cast iron pipe at the rate of 20 lf/hr, then in a 4

day/9 hour work week she needs to install 21.4 lf/hr. This is not a considerable

change in productivity of the current craftsmen.

FLOW IMPACTS The industry’s ability to plan is often constrained by the on-going activities of the

construction project. In a modified work schedule with 4 working days, the

management/administrative side can continue to work the 5th day in order to plan

work, transmit information (Submittals, RFI’s, etc.) and increase flow. This day is an

opportunity to plann for the coming work without the constraints and immediate

demands of on-going construction activities. "Normally only about 50% of the tasks

on weekly work plans are completed by the end of the plan week" (Ballard and

Howell, 2003). With this in mind there is a compelling reason to put more emphasis

on planning and achieving true flow so that when the craftspeople return to work they

can be more productive.

INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY There is not a wealth of data that shows there is an increase or decrease in

productivity by working less than 40 hours a week. There is however, data that shows

the decrease in productivity when working more than 40 hours. Figures 3 through 5

show various studies of the decrease in construction productivity when working

longer than 40 hours. When looking at these results, however, the analysis is

referenced at 40-hour work schedule. One could hypothesize that an increase in

productivity could be observed if data was obtained for shorter work schedules, and

A CALL FOR NEW RESEARCH IN THE LEAN CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY:

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES

WASTE IN CONSTRUCTION 439

hence extended to the left of the figures. There is a balance point where the number of

work hours optimizes time, productivity and overall output. The question is what such

balance point is.

Figure 2: Non-value Added vs. Value Added Activities of Craftsmen

Brent Nikolin, Jason Herrera, Tom McCready, David Grau, and Kristen Parrish

440 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia

Figure 3: Cumulative

Effects of Overtime on

Productivity (BRT 1974)

Figure 4: Productivity as

a Function of Successive

Weeks of Overtime (NECA

1969)

Figure 5: Overtime

Inefficiency (O’Connor

1968)

QUALITY OF LIFE

Based on responses to an interview questionnaire, we also postulate that the quality of

life for the craftsmen can improved in a smaller workload. Based on 112 craftsmen

responses from the sheetmetal, carpentry and electrical fields, the highest ranked

modified workweek was the 4x10 (Figure 3). All the workers believed that working 4

days a week would be the most optimal for safety, productivity, and quality of life.

One consideration is that the survey did not factor in compensation for the various

work weeks presented. We postulate that this may have lead to the craftsmen not to

considerate modified workweeks less than 40 hours since they would lead to a

reduced compensation.

Figure 6: Survey of Trades on Working Hour Preference

CURRENT CONDITION WORLDWIDE: ALTERNATIVE

WORK WEEK

Worldwide, 40-hour workweeks are relatively uncommon. Figure 7 illustrates

workweek lengths across the world. Based on anecdotal evidence, these shorter

workweeks seem to make workers more productive, as we tend to better utilize their

time when they feel constrained in terms of work time availability. Complementary,

employees must focus on what is important, and often encourage the attainment of the

expected quality of the finished work. The United States ranks forth in terms of hours

worked/gross domestic product. However, this statistic is misleading, as the United

States hours worked per worker are greater than other top ten countries by more than

20% and the top 20 but more than 10% (OECD, 2015).

A CALL FOR NEW RESEARCH IN THE LEAN CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY:

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES

WASTE IN CONSTRUCTION 441

Figure 7: Average Workweek Lengths across the World (PGI 2015)

A CALL FOR NEW RESEARCH

Based on the authors’ experience to date, owners refuse to adopt or implement an

alternative work schedule based on an adverse. However, other industries have

successfully adopted alternative workweeks in the United States. Moreover,

construction organizations in other countries have also adopted shorter workweeks

resulting in the benefits discussed above. We would like to invite the IGLC

community to critically assess the productivity, safety, quality of life, and

sustainability impacts of alternative workweeks for the labor force. Specifically, the

authors make the following suggestions for further research inquiries:

Conduct simulations to support or refute the notion that alternative workweeks

improve productivity, safety, and quality of life while reducing carbon

emissions.

Address the question of productivity comparisons across nations represented

at IGLC to understand how and why various workweeks impact productivity

and quality of life.

Conduct a “5 Whys” analysis to understand how and why alternative

workweeks were implemented in other industries (e.g., in the healthcare

sector) and determine whether or not these same indicators of success exist in

the construction industry.

CONCLUSION

Many industries have successfully adopted alternative work schedules to the benefit

of their employees and organizations. This study serves as a call to action for future

research to analyse the benefits and barriers of adopting alternative work schedules

for the construction labor force. The statistical analysis of work field data implies that

job incidents are related to work breaks, while most workers prefer a shorter weekly

work span with the same amount of work hours (i.e. 10 hours a week, 4 days a week).

Based on this data and also on evidence from previous studies, it can be stated that a

modified work schedule is likely to result in safer jobsites with more satisfied

employees, while securing a reduction in carbon emissions.

Brent Nikolin, Jason Herrera, Tom McCready, David Grau, and Kristen Parrish

442 Proceedings IGLC-23, July 2015 |Perth, Australia

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviewers whose comments made this paper

better.

REFERENCES American Forests, 2015. A Carbon Conundrum. Americanforests. Available at:

<http://www.americanforests.org/a-carbon-conundrum/> [Accessed 16 May,

2015].

Anthony, P.D. 2012. Working Beyond 9 to 5: The Impact of a University-wide

Alternative Work Arrangements Policy on Student Affairs Employees. PhD.

Georgia State University.

Ballard, G. Howell, G. 2003. Competing Construction Management Paradigms. In:

CRC, 2003 Construction Research Congress, Honolulu, Hawaii, March 19–21.

Combs, S. 2010. Analysis of Alternative Work Schedules. Texas Comptroller of

Public Accounts. Available at:

<http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/altschedule/Alternative_Wrk_Sched.p

df> [Accessed 16 May, 2015].

Donis-Keller, C., and Silvernail, D.L. 2009. A Review of the Evidence on the Four‐Day School Week. University of Southern Maineat. Available at:

<http://www2.umaine.edu/mepri/sites/default/files/CEPARE Brief on the 4-day

school week 2.10.pdf> [Accessed 16 May, 2015].

FHWA, 2013. Highway Statistics 2011. Federal Highway Administration. Available

at: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/vm1.cfm>.

[Accessed 16 March, 2015].

Geiger-Brown, J., Trinkoff, A., and Rogers, V.E. 2011. The Impact of Work

Schedules, Home, and Work Demands on Self-Reported Sleep in Registered

Nurses. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 53(3), pp.303-307.

Griffin, R.W., and Moorhead, G. 2012. Organizational Behavior: Managing People

and Organizations. Mason, OH: Cangage Learning.

Hall, R.E., and Jones, C.I. 1998. Why do Some Countries Produce so Much More

Output per Worker than Others?. National Bureau of Economic Research,

Cambridge. Available at: <http://www.nber.org/papers/w6564.pdf> [Accessed 16

March, 2015].

He, S.Y. 2013. Does Flextime Affect Choice of Departure Time for Morning Home-

Based Commuting Trips? Evidence from Two Regions in California. Transport

Policy, 25, pp. 210-221.

Kelly, E.L., Moen, P., and Tranby, E. 2011. Changing Workplaces to Reduce Work-

Family Conflict: Schedule Control in a White-Collar Organization. American

Sociological Review, 76(2), pp.265-290.

Kim, J., and Wiggins, M.E. 2011. Family-Friendly Human Resource Policy: Is It Still

Working in the Public Sector? Public Administration Review, 71(5), pp.728-739.

McKenzie, B., and Rapino, M. 2011. Commuting in the United States: 2009. US

Census Bureau. Available at: <http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf>

[Accessed 16 March, 2015].

A CALL FOR NEW RESEARCH IN THE LEAN CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY:

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES

WASTE IN CONSTRUCTION 443

Morrison, E., and Thurnell, D. 2012. Employee Preferences for Work-Life Benefits in

a Large New Zealand Construction Company. Australasian Journal of

Construction Economics and Building, 12(1), pp.12-25.

OECD, 2015. Labour productivity levels in the total economy. Organization for

Economic Co-Operation and Development. Available at:

<http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL> Accessed May 27, 2015.

PGI, 2015. Short Workweeks across the World. PGI. Available at:

<http://blog.pgi.com/2014/07/winding-work-week-infographic/> [Accessed May

27, 2015].

Tippins, M., and Stroh, L.K. 1993. The 4/4 Work Schedule: Impact on Employee

Productivity and Work Attitudes in a Continuous Operation Industry. Journal of

Applied Business Research, 9(3), pp.136-145.

Widrich, L. 2014. The Origin of the 8 Hour Work Day and Why We Should Rethink

It. Huffington Post. Available at: <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonhard-

widrich/the-origin-of-the-8-hour-_b_4524488.html> [7 Jan 2014].